People v. Canale

• Decision Date: 12 June 1997
• Citation: 240 A.D.2d 839,658 N.Y.S.2d 715
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Jeffrey T. CANALE, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 715

658 N.Y.S.2d 715

240 A.D.2d 839

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Jeffrey T. CANALE, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

June 12, 1997.

Sterling T. Goodspeed, District Attorney (John P.M. Wappett, of counsel), Lake George, for appellant.

McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Meyer (Joseph R. Brennan, of counsel), Glens Falls, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE and YESAWICH, JJ.

WHITE, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Warren County (Scarano Jr., J.), entered November 29, 1996, which partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.

Defendant, an attorney duly licensed to practice in New York, is the subject of a three-count indictment charging him with bribe receiving by a witness, conspiracy to testify falsely and misconduct by an attorney. The indictment was the result of a meeting on November 5, 1995 between defendant and Edwin Dalston, which was secretly tape-recorded by Dalston. Dalston, the father of a 14-month-old daughter born to his former paramour, Karen Reilly, was involved in a Family Court proceeding with Reilly concerning custody of the child. Defendant, who had previously not only represented Reilly but also had a personal relationship with her, telephoned Dalston on November 2, 1995 and offered to provide negative information about Reilly in connection with the Family Court custody proceeding in return for a payment of $500. As a result of this call, Dalston, together with his sister, met with defendant at a restaurant in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, on November 5, 1995 and paid defendant $400. The recording of the meeting, along with Dalston's testimony, formed the basis for the indictment. Thereafter, defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on insufficient evidence was partially granted by County Court, which dismissed count one (bribe receiving by a witness) and count three (misconduct by an attorney). The People now appeal.

A Grand Jury may indict only if the evidence before it is legally sufficient, which is defined as competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of the offense charged (see, People v. Labar, 221 A.D.2d 783, 784, 633 N.Y.S.2d 423, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 923, 641 N.Y.S.2d 604, 664 N.E.2d 515; see also, CPL 70.10[1] ). The sufficiency of the People's presentation must be judged by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, which, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a trial jury and all questions regarding the quality or weight of the proof should be deferred (see, People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 114-115, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079; People v. Rider, 115 A.D.2d 123, 124, 494 N.Y.S.2d 925). The fact that the proof presented to the Grand Jury may also be susceptible of the inference of innocence is immaterial as long as the Grand Jury could have rationally drawn an inference of guilt, and the weight to be accorded the evidence presented is exclusively within the province of the Grand Jury and not the court (see, People v. Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248, 252, 630 N.Y.S.2d 989, 654 N.E.2d 1237).

To establish the offense of bribe receiving by a witness, the People were required to present evidence that defendant, a person about to be called as a witness in an action, solicited, accepted or agreed to accept money from Dalston upon the understanding that his testimony would thereby be influenced. The gravamen of the crime is the agreement or understanding under which the witness accepts or agrees to accept a benefit, not the payment of money, and there is no requirement that the testimony actually be influenced (see, People v. Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313, 317, 552 N.Y.S.2d 900, 552 N.E.2d 148). It is defendant...